Jump to content

chasfh

What Will Become of Miguel Cabrera?

How will the Tigers deal with Miguel Cabrera?  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. How will the Tigers deal with Miguel Cabrera?

    • Grin and bear it for the remaining four-plus years.
      21
    • Keep him around for a few more seasons, but DFA him before the contract expires.
      6
    • DFA him after this season.
      1
    • Trade him.
      1
    • Successfully rehabilitate him into a useful player and good teammate.
      4
    • Other (explain in a post).
      6


Recommended Posts

so if he's accused of hitting his girlfriend, would you all change your tunes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Buddha said:

so if he's accused of hitting his girlfriend, would you all change your tunes?

What if his 'girlfriend' were a baseball?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tigrrfan said:

What if his 'girlfriend' were a baseball?

At least we'd know he didn't hit it hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Tenacious D said:

Alcoholism is a disease and typically leads to bad behavior.  I hope he can beat it, because it’s a lifelong challenge.

Well, even if I bought the whole "it's a disease, feel sorry for me because it's just as if I have lupus or leukemia" thing -- which I don't -- there is a huge difference between getting drunk and being an alcoholic.  First, to my understanding the "If an alcoholic takes just one drink he'll lose control and keep drinking" stuff has been shown pretty conclusively to be B.S.   But leaving that aside, I've been drunk (though not recently), and so has just about everyone else I know.  And I still drink, but not to excess.  I can pass up an opportunity to drink, or if I do drink  I can and so stop whenever I want to,  which is somewhere short of drunkenness, so I certainly don't qualify as an alcoholic. 

As for Cabrera's "incident," I have never seen or heard anything to suggest that it was anything more than a garden-variety episode or drunkenness,, much less that he is an alcoholic (or that he is bravely fighting a lifelong battle against the demon rum). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buddha said:

so if he's accused of hitting his girlfriend

Which one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

Well, even if I bought the whole "it's a disease, feel sorry for me because it's just as if I have lupus or leukemia" thing -- which I don't -- there is a huge difference between getting drunk and being an alcoholic.  First, to my understanding the "If an alcoholic takes just one drink he'll lose control and keep drinking" stuff has been shown pretty conclusively to be B.S.   But leaving that aside, I've been drunk (though not recently), and so has just about everyone else I know.  And I still drink, but not to excess.  I can pass up an opportunity to drink, or if I do drink  I can and so stop whenever I want to,  which is somewhere short of drunkenness, so I certainly don't qualify as an alcoholic. 

As for Cabrera's "incident," I have never seen or heard anything to suggest that it was anything more than a garden-variety episode or drunkenness,, much less that he is an alcoholic (or that he is bravely fighting a lifelong battle against the demon rum). 

Sort of along the same lines - in my 20s and 30s I'm sure I would have qualified as an alcoholic under the standards used today.   I drank 3-5 nights a week and usually fairly heavily.  (5-10 drinks/beers)  Between 2-3 nights a week of golf/bowling leagues (depending on the season) and weekends it's just what happened.  Once I turned 35 waking up at 5am feeling like crap got old and I simply drifted away from drinking.   By age 45 I rarely, rarely drank and now (age 58) I don't think I've had 10 drinks in the last 10 years.   I guess the point of all that is every time I read about alcoholism being a lifelong fight I raise an eyebrow - at least in my case - either it was easy to walk away or the standards to be an "alcoholic" are wrong.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it had been well established Cabrera is an alcoholic. First I have heard anyone dispute that.  I thought it was reported that he was going to AA and had a (paid) sponsor around him 24/7 stemming from the incident referred above.

Everyone handles alcohol differently.  I more or less drank beer regularly (I'd guess 10 cans / bottles a week on average) for 25 years and dropped it, and other adult beverages, no problem this year as part of an effort to get back into shape.  Other people just have to be around it or stressed out and they are binging.  I am not sure anyone's testimonial carries much weight here because of person to person differences seem to be pretty stark.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I thought it had been well established Cabrera is an alcoholic. First I have heard anyone dispute that.  I thought it was reported that he was going to AA and had a (paid) sponsor around him 24/7 stemming from the incident referred above.

Everyone handles alcohol differently.  I more or less drank beer regularly (I'd guess 10 cans / bottles a week on average) for 25 years and dropped it, and other adult beverages, no problem this year as part of an effort to get back into shape.  Other people just have to be around it or stressed out and they are binging.  I am not sure anyone's testimonial carries much weight here because of person to person differences seem to be pretty stark.

I agree.   I think as with most things a "one size fits all" diagnosis is next to worthless.   I never felt I "needed" a drink but I'm sure there were others that drank less that did.

And it's not like I didn't have other addictions.  I tried off and on to quit smoking for 35 years until July of 2015 when I just did one day.   Now at nearly 4 years and never have had another puff on a cigarette.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LooseGoose said:

Sort of along the same lines - in my 20s and 30s I'm sure I would have qualified as an alcoholic under the standards used today.   I drank 3-5 nights a week and usually fairly heavily.  (5-10 drinks/beers)  Between 2-3 nights a week of golf/bowling leagues (depending on the season) and weekends it's just what happened.  Once I turned 35 waking up at 5am feeling like crap got old and I simply drifted away from drinking.   By age 45 I rarely, rarely drank and now (age 58) I don't think I've had 10 drinks in the last 10 years.   I guess the point of all that is every time I read about alcoholism being a lifelong fight I raise an eyebrow - at least in my case - either it was easy to walk away or the standards to be an "alcoholic" are wrong.

 

 

Some people are genetically wired so that they physically can not control their drinking or have a very difficult time stopping even if they want to.  Even if, with great difficulty, they are able to stop drinking they keep thinking about drinking all the time.  That is alcoholism.  Other people can drink a lot, but are able to stop when they want to.  That sounds like you, so you are not an alcoholic.      

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 1:49 PM, Gehringer_2 said:

OK, let me pose a purely rhetorical question. If we live in a post religious society, how do right and wrong get defined for that society if not by the collective judgment of that society? 

These judgments are usually made for less elevated reasons than some concept of morality. 

Often people are just venting and being judgmental because their lives are frustrating and they feel powerless. They could care less about morality. Then it devolves into a lame simian dominance ritual where they feel better by making others feel worse.

Ethical discriminations end up being unevenly applied. If you like someone you cut them a break if you don’t you don’t cut them a break. There are a lot of current examples of this.  

Anyway, the elevated lifestyles of highly successful, highly famous people provide temptations the rest of us can only dream of encountering. It’s easy to say “I would never do that.”

It’s best to just appreciate them for whatever they do because you’ll usually be disappointed when you find out what they’re really like. 

  

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

Some people are genetically wired so that they physically can not control their drinking or have a very difficult time stopping even if they want to.  Even if, with great difficulty, they are able to stop drinking they keep thinking about drinking all the time.  That is alcoholism.  Other people can drink a lot, but are able to stop when they want to.  That sounds like you, so you are not an alcoholic.      

I wouldn't argue with a word of this.   My argument would be with the common definitions of an alcoholic.  I think it should be more focused on the need/compulsion to drink than the quantity consumed.   Either way it sucks to be in the grip of anything like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

I wouldn't argue with a word of this.   My argument would be with the common definitions of an alcoholic.  I think it should be more focused on the need/compulsion to drink than the quantity consumed.   Either way it sucks to be in the grip of anything like that.

Yup. There was a point (about the time when Cabrera was busted) when anyone who had been drunk once for any reason was being considered an alcohol dependent with a problem. There are people who drink too much too much too often especially socially, where it is more of a lifestyle habit, what you might call "party drunks". These people (usually young) have a behavioral  problem but they are not all alcoholics. They are certainly  putting themselves at risk for become alcoholics (or having some serious accident) - esp if they carry that strong tendency to physiological addiction, but a lot of them will just figure out they should stop or cut back and then do.

I suppose you can define alcoholism to include those people, but I would not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, six-hopper said:

Well, even if I bought the whole "it's a disease, feel sorry for me because it's just as if I have lupus or leukemia" thing -- which I don't -- there is a huge difference between getting drunk and being an alcoholic.  First, to my understanding the "If an alcoholic takes just one drink he'll lose control and keep drinking" stuff has been shown pretty conclusively to be B.S.   But leaving that aside, I've been drunk (though not recently), and so has just about everyone else I know.  And I still drink, but not to excess.  I can pass up an opportunity to drink, or if I do drink  I can and so stop whenever I want to,  which is somewhere short of drunkenness, so I certainly don't qualify as an alcoholic. 

 

Alcoholism is a disease.  I wouldn't say it's like leukemia, but it's a physical thing.  

Very few alcoholics are able to learn how to drink moderately.  A true alcoholic can't drink at all or he or she will almost surely go back to their old habits.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LooseGoose said:

I wouldn't argue with a word of this.   My argument would be with the common definitions of an alcoholic.  I think it should be more focused on the need/compulsion to drink than the quantity consumed.   Either way it sucks to be in the grip of anything like that.

yeah, the correct definition of alcoholic should include the compulsion to drink.  Drinking too much is risky behavior, but it's not necessarily indicative of alcoholism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I'd like to believe my feelings on the matter would be the same independent of his performance on the field.

If he was accused of beating his girlfriend, would you still want him on the team or root for him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are times where a guy's personal life should be a factor.  For example, how many people agree that the Tigers should have fired Bosio over making racists remarks?  Does the fact that he said it in the clubhouse as opposed to a bar make a difference?  

Of course, coaches are held to a different standard than players.  Delmon Young also made racist remarks, but wasn't released.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Buddha said:

If he was accused of beating his girlfriend, would you still want him on the team or root for him?

Did he beat up his girlfriend in the clubhouse or in the privacy of his own home?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point being 1) I'm kind of an *** hole; and 2) the same folks who don't think we should care about what Cabrera does off the field when he's ******* 5 women who aren't his wife might think differently if it were, say, the Lions thinking about signing Kareem Hunt or Tyreke Evans or Ray Rice.

What's the difference?  If you really don't care about what a player does off the field, then you shouldn't care whether he's been accused of beating up a girl of if he's been accused of a DUI.

Personally, I think what a player does on his own time is his own business.  What you do privately should not affect your ability to hold a job.  If it's a criminal activity, that's for the courts to decide, but in the interim you should be able to earn a living like any other free born American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes both ways too.  Fans tend to like players more based on things like, race, sexual orientation, where they grew up, and religious background.  These things should not matter at all, but to some fans they do.  It's human nature.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buddha said:

What you do privately should not affect your ability to hold a job

I would agree with that statement in the main - at least up the limit where an employer can show your private conduct has a material potential impact on your job performance, but that is not the legal regime that US big 4 team sport professionals operate under.  Especially when employee and employer have a collective bargaining relationship,  standards for non-workplace conduct that are part of bargaining agreements have always been enforcible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

I would agree with that statement in the main - at least up the limit where an employer can show your private conduct has a material potential impact on your job performance, but that is not the legal regime that US big 4 team sport professionals operate under.  Especially when employee and employer have a collective bargaining relationship,  standards for non-workplace conduct that are part of bargaining agreements have always been enforcible.

i agree with you.  my position is largely an ideological one.  i realize that legal pressures as well as social pressures place sports employers in a different position than many other employers.  heck, i handle major severity claims for insurance companies, i know the legal trouble companies get in for employing people with less than stellar backgrounds.

my main point is that if youve taken the philosophical stance that what is private remains private, and youre not concerned with what a player does outside of their job, then you should be consistent and hold that opinion no matter the crime which they have been accused.

and if you have the opposite opinion, and feel that players should be prohibited from playing sports in public settings if they violate some set of moral criteria you have set forth, then hold to that opinion regardless of how much you like the player personally (if you think derrick rose shouldnt be in the nba because someone accused him of rape, then dont root for chauncey billups because someone accused him of the same thing).

im also a firm believer in a person's right to be free if theyve been merely accused of a crime, and a firm believer in the rights of the guilty to work their way back into society.  being involved in any criminal defense case will provide a different perspective in the power of the state over the accused.  it can be frightening.

/soapbox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Buddha said:

If he was accused of beating his girlfriend, would you still want him on the team or root for him?

Depends of the credibility/severity of the accusation, but if it were credible/severe, I wouldn't cheer tor him or want the team I supported to employ him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, LooseGoose said:

Sort of along the same lines - in my 20s and 30s I'm sure I would have qualified as an alcoholic under the standards used today.   I drank 3-5 nights a week and usually fairly heavily.  (5-10 drinks/beers)  Between 2-3 nights a week of golf/bowling leagues (depending on the season) and weekends it's just what happened.  Once I turned 35 waking up at 5am feeling like crap got old and I simply drifted away from drinking.   By age 45 I rarely, rarely drank and now (age 58) I don't think I've had 10 drinks in the last 10 years.   I guess the point of all that is every time I read about alcoholism being a lifelong fight I raise an eyebrow - at least in my case - either it was easy to walk away or the standards to be an "alcoholic" are wrong.

 

 

Well, I still drink a lot more than you do.  I've had at least ten drinks in the last two weeks as opposed to the last ten years.  Usually have a couple with my teammates after a baseball game, two or three if I'm at my club for the evening or at a bar to watch a game.  But almost never more than three in a sitting.  (St. Patrick's Day is a notable exception.)

When I was a lot younger, as in my late teens and twenties, I, like many in my circle of friends and close acquaintances, often drank to get drunk.  I outgrew that pretty quickly, although a bunch of people I hung out with didn't.  And even back then, I was something of a drinking snob, as one of the lessons from my father that actually took was that I should drink good stuff, not krap.  I drink what I like, which at the moment is mainly craft beer and good whiskey -- high-end bourbon, single-malt scotch, and single-pot-still Irish.  (What I drink after my team's baseball games tends to be a little more low-brow, as many of my teammates have an inexplicable  fondness for insipid beer like Coors Light or even the toxic Bud Light.  Drinking that swill in moderation is especially easy for me.)

Depending on my schedule and the time of year, I may go a week or two without drinking anything, or I may drink several nights in a row.  But never enough to be drunk or to have a hangover or trouble getting up in the morning.   Or to go to jail.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...